How Much Worse Can Obama's Foreign Policy Team Get? I Give You Michael McFaul
More bad news news on the Obama foreign policy front, at least for lefty internationalists like me, and and also for traditional realists equally opposed to the neoconservatism and crusading, interventionist liberalism and American exceptionalism that held sway during much of the Bush administration. Foreign Policy's "The Cable" is reporting the appointment of neo-cold warrior Michael McFaul, of Stanford and the conservative Hoover Institute, as senior director for Russian affairs at the NSC, and special assistant to the President.
McFaul is, among other dubious connections, one of the "international patrons" of the Henry Jackson Society, a sort of UK extension of the neoconservative movement, whose other patrons are a veritable Who's Who of neoconservative poobahs, and include: Max Boot, Jean Bethke Elshtain, Dore Gold, Robert Kagan, William Kristol, Clifford May, Joshua Muravchik, Richard Perle, Natan Sharansky, Stephen Solarz and James Woolsey.
An enthusiast for NATO expansion and a confrontational approach toward Russia, McFaul serves on the boards of a variety of foundations and funds engaged in the permanent Washington and Western push against the Russian state, and in shoveling money to myriad anti-Moscow actors in the former Soviet Union. McFaul is a bona fide Jacobin fanatic preaching global revolution and regime change. In 2002, McFaul wrote the following in the conservative Hoover Foundation Journal, *Policy Review*:
"The United States cannot be content with preserving the current order in the international system. Rather, the United States must become once again a revisionist power - a country that seeks to change the international system as a means of enhancing its own national security. Moreover, this mission must be offensive in nature. The United States cannot afford to wait and react to the next attack. Rather, we must seek to isolate and destroy our enemies by eliminating their regimes and safe havens. The ultimate purpose of American power is the creation of an international community of democratic states that encompasses every region of the planet."
Of course, we won't hear much about what McFaul is actually doing in the shadows at the NSC. But it won't be good.
This is just the latest evidence that the Obama administration's foreign policy has been thoroughly captured by the reigning foreign policy royalty and usual suspects in the seemingly impregnable establishment citadels of the think-tankery. The same crowing fools and romantic nationalists who brought us Iraq still rule the roost. And Obama has apparently "reached out" to every foreign policy camp in the establishment - but not at all to the left which helped nominate him. The left has instead been ignored and smacked down in the most humiliating way possible. Not a single representative. Stiffed.Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, James Jones, Michael McFaul, Robert Gates. The Obama seems poised to drag the United States, and our children, into another round of bloody, costly and self-destructive overseas adventures, on a quixotic quest to "restore American power" to its triumphalist glory days peak, and to shove the American way of life into every orifice of the global body politic.
But this time, adventurers will be assisted by an army of brain-dead, ditto-headed, Democratic sycophants, eager to follow St. Barack anywhere he leads them.





We're also supposed to believe that some upcoming meeting announcing a plan to get "combat" troops out of Iraq is the same thing as getting out of Iraq. This is supposed to fool the left according to CNN.
Keep your eyes squarely on how many billions of dollars a week we keep wasting in Iraq.
And watch out for your Social Security!
January 17, 2009 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is some more context for what is going on in US-Russia relations at the present time:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/KA17Ag02.html
January 17, 2009 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks very much DanK for this excellent and informative post. I went to the Henry Jackson Society and looked up the International Patrons. It is one of the most sickening congregations of aggressive, reactionary, neocon adventurists and militarists I have seen in one place.
I was hoping against hope that some of the dire warning signs I have seen coming out of the Obama administration were not so; this really is bad.
January 17, 2009 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yikes!
January 17, 2009 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it is too simplistic to lump McFaul together with the neocons. In regards to the importance of diplomacy that has been mostly abandoned as a means of influence by the Bushies, McFaul clearly shows how that lack of activity contributed to the crisis in Georgia in his testimony before Congress. One needs to read the whole thing to get the range of position MaFaul has developed but here is paragraph that is to the point:
The testimony is also interesting in the contrast between Kagan and McFaul. Where Kagan spends a lot of energy defending the US strategy in the region, McFaul points out that we don't have one yet.
January 18, 2009 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
You focus on the least significant aspect of the testimony, minor disagreements on how much fault to assign to which players regarding past events, and the extent to which other foreign policy choices have been a distraction from McFaul's precious cold war with Russia, and the attempt to draw Russia's next-door neighbors Ukraine and Georgia into that cold war.
The important point is that Kagan and McFaul are two peas in pod on Russia policy going forward, and agree with each other back and forth in advancing a confrontational and neo-cold war agenda. McFaul's first suggestion in his list of twelve suggestions is that he wants to "reunify our alliance". I take it he is talking about the NATO alliance, which was established as an anti-Soviet alliance. He wants to re-unify that alliance to adopt a stronger anti-Russia stand.
Look at the tense exchange between McFaul and Dana Rohrabacher. Rohrabacher, of all people, is less hawkish and confrontational than McFaul!
January 18, 2009 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
In terms of signaling the future course of the Obama administration, the issue of diplomacy raised in the hearing is not a minor disagreement about who is to blame. McFaul criticizes the billion dollar proposal itself in that light:
The interchange with Rohrabacher was interesting but also confusing. McFaul's stance on "democracy promotion" concerns me too. My point is that he does not act like a neocon when he calls for actively seeking and nurturing grounds of mutual interest with the government of Russia.
So I get it that he is not a choice that appeals to "lefty internationalists" but his constant referals to George Shultz make wonder if he really is anathema to "traditional realists"
January 18, 2009 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone catch Rahm's new spin on Iraq? Weren't we going to end the war back there in primary season? Now, we're going to "reduce our presence".
But, hey, Social Security is on the table. Anyone remember Social Security being on the table during primary season?
January 18, 2009 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
What? Social security is on the table? Why?
January 18, 2009 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is a good question.
January 18, 2009 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yup.
April 16th debate wth HillaryJanuary 18, 2009 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
The focus has changed from capturing revenue to tackling spending...
"WASHINGTON -- Pointing with concern to "red ink as far as the eye can see," President-elect Barack Obama pledged Wednesday to tackle out-of-control Social Security and Medicare spending ..."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/07/AR2009010700285.html
January 18, 2009 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
No doubt.
I was just answering the actual question.
January 19, 2009 12:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Where does Blair fit in, for you?
Who exactly are the sycophants you mentioned - you mean in Congress, here in the blogosphere, those hard at work at jobs, ... ?
January 18, 2009 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was worried about this appointment!
We know her, A Democratic Neocon, or am I mis-remembering?
America Abroad blog on TPMCafe, Princeton Project is that enough?
Anne-Marie Slaughter, (LINK)
.................
dean of Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, is likely to be named director of policy planning, sources said. She'd be the first woman to run the State Department's in-house think tank.
..................
Bio (LINK)
..........She was a regular contributor to the America Abroad blog on TPMCafe.com,
and still contributes periodically to TPMCafe.
She is also the convener and academic co-chair of the Princeton Project on National Security, a multi-year research project aimed at developing a new, bipartisan national security strategy for the United States, and is a member of the National War Powers Commission. ...........
January 18, 2009 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
This attack on Michael McFaul is hyperbolic and off the mark. In the last few years there have been few more effective critics of Bush policies in the Middle East and elsewhere, precisely because McFaul has had such credibility in the foreign policy mainstream. For example, his remarkable article with Abbas Milani and Larry Diamond two years ago in The Washington Quarterly, "A Win-Win U.S. Strategy for Dealing with Iran," recommended that the U.S. offer Iran a grand bargain, entailing full diplomatic relations and a lifting of all sanctions, in exchange for Iran agreeing to full compliance with IAEA inspections plus a Helsinki-style set of understandings about respecting human rights. Inasmuch as half of the Iranian clerical establishment plus much of the Iranian business and professional class would become wildly enthusiastic about such an offer, since its acceptance would substantially improve Iran's economic position in the world, it could help tip the internal balance of power in Iran toward moderates, and end up permanently defusing the Iranian-American stand-off and actually diminish internal repression in that country -- all without a hint of American "hard power". Needless to say, the proposed strategy was met with deafening silence by the Bush Administration. It's not credible that a Bush loyalist and neo-con apologist would be embracing that kind of foreign policy initiative. But then, as I've said, that description doesn't fit McFaul. At a time when Russia has been behaving as something of an aggressive, syndicalist state, stamping out free speech at home and playing games with Europe's gas supplies, it wouldn't be a bad thing for a tough but creative and diplomatically minded thinker like McFaul to be advising Obama on Russia.
January 21, 2009 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink